Category: Access to Care

The CBO has refused to adjust its computations to the ever-more-apparent failings of the Affordable Care Act. When the CBO says that 23 million fewer people will have insurance coverage under the AHCA than under the ACA—a statistic that politics have converted into a mantra—that figure is predicated on fictional ACA participation. The CBO assumes 18 million people will be enrolled in ACA exchanges in 2018 and that enrollment will continue to grow until 2026. No one on any side of the political spectrum believes this to be true.

If the Senate were simply to remove the House bill’s uniform tax credit and continue the hybrid model past 2019 through 2020 and beyond, the bill would most likely get a better coverage score from the CBO. The Senate would be able to direct more financial assistance to those who need it, whether because of old age, ill health, or low income. Indeed, the Senate could tweak the exact formulas for age and income adjustment to maximize the number of people with health insurance in the most cost-effective way.

Immediately following the vote on the House GOP’s American Health Care Act (AHCA), misinformation about the bill began spreading like wildfire, stoking fears and outrage. The issue which seems to be getting the most attention is the potential impact this legislation could have on people with pre-existing conditions.

Under AHCA, the federal guaranteed issue requirement would NOT be repealed, meaning that insurers in every state would still be prohibited from denying insurance coverage to anyone on the basis of a pre-existing condition. In no circumstance would this protection be denied, though it seems much confusion surrounding this protection has stemmed from the adoption of several amendments to the underlying legislation. It is unlikely that many Americans will be impacted by the provisions of one particular amendment in question, the MacArthur amendment. It is also important to remember that the AHCA must still be passed by the Senate and is likely to undergo significant reforms before it does, in which case, the legislation would again have to be passed by the House.

If you’ve only followed coverage of the Republican health-care bill loosely in the media, you might believe that House Republicans, after much effort, passed legislation to deny people with pre-existing conditions health insurance. The issue of pre-existing conditions has dominated the debate over the GOP health-care bill out of all proportion to the relatively modest provision in the legislation, which is being distorted — often willfully, sometimes ignorantly — into a threat to all that is good and true in America. The perversity of it all is that the legislation is properly understood as doing more to preserve the Obamacare regulation on pre-existing conditions than to undermine it.

Aetna Inc. is quitting Virginia’s Obamacare market for 2018, the second state that Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini is exiting as he seeks to limit his insurer’s risks from the beleaguered health law.

“We will not offer on- or off-exchange individual plans in Virginia,” Aetna said in an emailed statement, citing $200 million or more in losses the company anticipates this year on individual products. The insurer also cited “growing uncertainty in the marketplace” for the plans.

UnitedHealth Group Inc., which has largely stopped selling ACA health plans, said last month it was pulling out of Virginia. Also in April, Aetna said it wouldn’t sell Obamacare plans on Iowa’s market next year.

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the already distorted health-care marketplace became even more uncoupled from market forces. The public has predictably sought out cues to help them navigate a confusing minefield of convoluted policy and high-stakes politics. One of the most useful navigation tools is the personal story—and here the GOP finds itself outgunned.

The Republican predicament is illustrated in the cultural response to a monologue by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel who, through tears, made an impassioned plea to President Donald Trump and the GOP not to decrease public funding for or access to health insurance.

House conservatives rebelled over the original version of the American Health Care Act, which only partially deregulated insurance markets. The bill maintained the rule known as guaranteed issue, which requires insurers to cover all applicants regardless of medical history. It also relaxed community rating, which limits how much premiums can vary among beneficiaries.

The media and the left thus claim that conservatives want to allow insurers to charge sick people more, and some conservatives agree, which spooks the moderates. But the latest compromise between conservatives and centrists doesn’t repeal guaranteed issue or community rating. It keeps these regulations as the default baseline, and states could apply for a federal waiver if they want to pursue other regulatory relief.

President Donald Trump said Monday the Republican health-care bill being negotiated in Congress ultimately will protect Americans with pre-existing conditions as well as Obamacare does.

“I want it to be good for sick people. It’s not in its final form right now,” he said during an Oval Office interview Monday with Bloomberg News. “It will be every bit as good on pre-existing conditions as Obamacare.”

There’s no way around a simple truth: treating an expensive health condition costs (someone) lots of money. There are four basic approaches that can be taken to this problem: 1) Leave sick people to face the costs of their own treatment, whether out of pocket or through high-cost insurance, no matter how ruinous those costs become; 2) Mandate that other, healthier people overpay for the value of their own health insurance, so that sick people can underpay for the value of theirs; 3) Spread the costs of paying expensive health bills throughout society, for example by having taxpayers pick up the tab; and 4) Require a targeted group to shoulder the costs. [The AHCA opts for 3).]
. . .